Posted on 03/20/2008 12:07:49 PM PDT by gondramB
The FBI has recently adopted a novel investigative technique: posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them.
Undercover FBI agents used this hyperlink-enticement technique, which directed Internet users to a clandestine government server, to stage armed raids of homes in Pennsylvania, New York, and Nevada last year. The supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images.
A CNET News.com review of legal documents shows that courts have approved of this technique, even though it raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com ...
One is that if the government will do this, what else will they do?
And the other has to do with automated surfing techniques.
There are lots of programs and browser addins in use that will check links or get previews of links or cache links. I am concerned about how many steps away from non-illegal sites these links are.
Suppose on Freep, someone posts an inline picture of Spitzer's hooker from a blog and that blog has an add from a porn site etc. I am concerned that people's i.p addresses could be captured and use for prosecution without any intent to download child porn.
If the sites were password protected and the perp had to set up a free account with email verification and then choose to download kiddie porn, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the government's prosecution.
This case seems to show that having the link, that was posted on a message board accessed in any way was enough to cause not just a raid but actual felony conviction.
And no actual kiddie porn has to be found to prosecute, apparently.
In addition to prosecuting the wrong people this would also seem to take resources away from prosecuting real kiddie porn.
“One is that if the government will do this, what else will they do?”
Well, you know they’re monitoring us here, right? ;)
Actually, our rights will be in much more jeopardy once The Beast or Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong take the wheel. I don’t think either would think twice about using our Constitution as TP.
I think the government has figured out that they can beat the ‘Kiddie Porn Is Bad’ drum and get away with all kinds of due process violations. The reason people go along with it is because kiddie really is as bad as the government is saying it is, and no one wants to be seen as soft on criminals who exploit children.
Whoa????????????????????
How long before even clicking on “Reply” on FR will become a felony?
WAY over the line.
Wow, this is nuts!!
I detest sex offenders, absolutely detest them. However, this practice concerns me. Anyone could hit on one link accidently, or there could be a “false hit.” And I’ve seen how “armed raids” are conducted. It isn’t done...delicately....
I’d want to know that they hit on these links more than once before the stormtroopers go kicking down doors.
>>Actually, our rights will be in much more jeopardy once The Beast or Obama-Lama-Ding-Dong take the wheel. I don’t think either would think twice about using our Constitution as TP.<<
Yes. Its not wise to think about these expansions of government power only in terms of whether we trust this administration not to take advantage. We need to consider future administrations.
The phrase “Absolute power corrupts” is a clichee because it is so widely true. There have been hundreds of revolutions since the American revolution and how many have produced leaders who were offered absolute power and turned it down?
One reason America is unique is that George Washingtons are so rare.
This would seem to be less than grounds for arrest and conviction, and more of grounds for approval of an explicit electronic eavesdropping warrant.
The catalog's first page was a disclaimer that no one depicted in any of the materials was under the age of 21. However, the individual descriptions were found to outweigh the disclaimer and no entrapment was found. BTW entrapment is an EXTREMELY hard legal standard to meet.
In some cases individuals had been on the porn mailing list from a decade earlier and had been undergoing treatment but alleged the catalog pushed them over the edge. Again, that is not entrapment.
They'll have to ask McCain to save them a sheet. Lucky that those global warming types only need one.
It is certainly worrying.
I would NEVER knowingly visit a child porn site, not only because I make it a practice of never visiting any porn sites, but because porn sites are, from what I have heard, infested with adware and viruses.
But I think it is unconscionable to break in on someone merely for visiting such a site. A minimal requirement should be downloading from such a site.
What about all those redirect viruses out there, which can send you to porn sites when you think you are going somewhere else? What about misleading spam messages, which claim to be sending you somewhere else.
I don’t click the links on spam messages, either, for good reason, but it shouldn’t be a crime to do so.
How about spending a little more time arresting spammers and porn site operators?
reason #642 not to have a wireless network at home
If a dem ever became the President, the Repubs would start acting like repubs again. As we have seen, the problem is when it's all Repubs.
Keep in mind, the FBI is doing this now, while the Repubs are in charge of the Executive. Any outrage from the Repubs?
This is basically thought crime. I don't care to go there regardless how good the purpose might be imo.
“This case seems to show that having the link, that was posted on a message board accessed in any way was enough to cause not just a raid but actual felony conviction.”
They must be using this as probable cause for the search. Evidence found in the search would then be used for a conviction. I’ve read that simply viewing an image on a browser doesn’t meet the legal definition. That the files must be emailed or specifically downloaded. Evidently there have been cases decided where using the browser was not clear enough intent.
I also wonder where the FBI is putting these links? Are they posting fake messages or hacking someone else’s website?
I applaud efforts to catch these scum but it seems that every day there is a new way the govt is gathering more power.
What scares me is the fact that unsolicited spam could come into your mailbox containing illicit material. Even if your spam filter promptly kills it, there could be a record of it going over the line to your computer and your hard drive could still hold traces of it.
I think we should spend more time/effort chasing/jailing those responsible for creating and distributing this stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.